Tokyo Babylon

I swear if you read an environmental journal and an economics journal you’d think there were two different worlds called Earth. Read on and you’ll see what I mean.

“Adios to poverty, hola to consumption” that’s the title of an Economist article on economic growth in Latin America. It’s wonderful to hear about people dragging themselves out of poverty, getting access to education and improved medical care, but the downside is that The Economist article is a peon in praise of consumption along the lines of the American model and that could have deadly consequences.

In the article line after line of text is about record levels of consumer credit, car purchases, mortgages, computers and electronics. “All these positive trends are recent and remain fragile” we are told. Perhaps it is just me, but I find it disturbing. I find myself smiling as I squirm in my chair. I feel like the guy at the party who just knocked over the drinks table.

The ‘what’ I agree is good, the ‘how’ we are getting that ‘what’ is the thing that makes me very uneasy.

When I read news like this it’s like watching a movie about a young kid in a new car, bought with credit, whooping for joy out the window as he races along. You smile along and nod your head. It’s a good thing to watch after all. Me, the man sitting next to you, smiles along, but clearly my heart is not in it. You see, I know something you don’t. I’ve seen this movie before and I know that after a few minutes of a whooping and hollering he’s going to find that he’s got no brakes and about to run out of road.

The Economist seems unable to consider the fact that we are living in a world with limits and that the very existence of these limits should determine the “how” we get the “whats” that, let’s face it, we all want. Accelerating consumption across the globe is not cause for unalloyed joy, only accelerated well-being would be. The Economist would say that increasing consumption and increasing well being were on the same page of the dictionary. But that’s a tired refrain, long since bereft of any authority.

For you see these people are all being lifted out of poverty by an economic machine that is destroying everything we need in order to survive. We passed long ago the point where we were not eating into our natural capital base. It’s rather like a man standing in a tree sawing on the branch he’s standing on; it’s foolishness elevated to an artform. So while I feel happy for those people who will know the joy of their first CD player (as the Economist measures joy) still my happiness is bittersweet.

Study after study has shown that past a certain level more consumption does not make you any happier or fulfilled as a human being, but when you talk to an economist, or read The Economist, you’ll be engulfed by a kind of determined unconsciousness. They’re out of touch with reality. They’ll show you data, but take a step back and look at their argument and you’ll see they’re not data mining, they’re shovelling something altogether less appealing.

Nevertheless, if you were to ask a Brazilian or a Colombian what they want, they will tell you they want what we have, and will quite rightly point out that they don’t see why they should have to settle for anything less. They do have a point. Consumption is the universal religion and everyone wants the chance to worship at the altar.

The problem with that is it’s rather like everyone on a ship wanting to be in the crows nest, high above the ship. Sure the view is great, but then the boat capsizes because it’s top heavy, and then it will be too late to do anything about it. Right now the boat is swaying a fair bit.

If we want to stay afloat and breathing air we’ll have to lower that crow’s nest as more people get into it. The options are not as bleak as you might think, except if you’re a fanatical Humvee owner. Consumption on the level we’re at has to go. We need to make things to last. We can’t throw things out anymore, we need to be able to reuse everything. If we can do that then we will completely separate consumption from the natural world. Now before you start wringing your hands keep in mind that many of the things I’m talking about are already being done.

In Europe manufacturers are responsible for the full life cycle of their products -they sell it - you use it -they have to take it back. If they’re smart like American company Caterpillar, they’ll design it so that it can be refurbished and sold again, just like their industrial engines . This is a big money earner for Caterpillar, and not too much of a sacrifice for the customer since good as new isn’t a big step down from new, and what’s more it’s cheaper. If everything in it can be recycled then you’re essentially looking at a consumer good that can live forever, like something out of a vampire movie, requiring only energy to revitalize it whenever it gets wrinkly. This would separate consumption from environmental damage provided we can power it entirely with renewable energy.

There needs to be a movement that shows people how they can live the life they would want to live rather than buying the life that none of us can afford. If anyone out there knows of such a movement please tell me so I can become part of the cure instead of part of the problem.

The Economist and I are in complete agreement on the “what’ which is people should not live in poverty. We disagree somewhat on they why, since consumption and well being are not the same past a certain point. More importantly we disagree totally on the “How” and it’s not me that’s wrong.

In the Danish city of Kalundborg there is a stellar example of industrial ecology. Sounds like another oxymoron doesn’t it? First there was military intelligence and honest politician and now industrial ecology you say? Whatever next living dead? A visible Gideon? Bill Hicks the comedian called these guys ninjas while asking the question “Have you ever seen a Gideon?” Anyway I digress, as usual.

Industrial Ecology is the almost exactly the same as ZERI, but whereas ZERI cycles organic materials through natural processes industrial ecology can channel inorganic materials, including the stuff that’s poisonous and can’t be broken down by nature. The thinking is fundamentallly the same but the products are different since a lot of it is inorganic chemistry.

The industrial ecology started with a coal fired power station. The power station is basically the engine for the entire thing. If it closes down then it’s like a natural ecology has just had its sun turned off. The power station produces heat and a variety of gases and solids as waste products. But the other main partners are an oil refinery

Waste heat powers a neighbourhood heating scheme instead of raising the temperature of water in streams and lakes. It also provides water to fish farms and greenhouses.

The desulphurization process incorporated into the chimney to reduce acid rain produces large amounts of gypsum which is the primary constituent of plasterboard and so the gypsum flows to the plasterboard company nearby, replacing the Gypsum bought and transported from Spain.

Gas at the statoil company which would normally be just burned is instead treated to reduce its sulphur content, the suplhur is sold to a sulphuric acid company, the gas is used in the power station to reduce coal requirements.

These are just a few examples of how something that would normally be considered industrial waste is instead an input for another industrial process, to the benefit of profitability AND the environment. Payback time is under 5 years. The estimated cost of putting the links together is around $75 million the estimated savings up to this point amount to $160 million so far.

What does this have to do with what I’ve been talking about on my blog. Well this is big business and the community. Industrial Ecology requires all these industries to be close to each other. The managers of each business have to know each other. That’s community, but keep in mind that while a lot of these large industries are beyond the ability of individuals to establish that a combination of community coops and government aid means that a lot of these businesses could be developed by the community for the community.